Scofield Bible Damage and Atheist Arguments

[The Gospel of Christ]

I just googled did the "did the Rockafellow foundation support the Scofield bible". The answer was NO.

You googled something huh? Thats cute.

Scofield + Zionism + Rockefeller = Theological Mind Bomb

1. Scofield’s Zionist agenda was backed by Oxford and British-Israel financial interests.
He was not a theologian. He was a disgraced lawyer, convicted of forgery, and abandoned his family. Yet somehow his reference Bible magically became the most influential in America?
Why? How?
Because he had help.

Joseph Canfield’s biography “The Incredible Scofield and His Book” (1974) is the smoking gun.
It details Scofield’s ties to Samuel Untermeyer, a prominent Zionist lawyer who also helped draft the Federal Reserve Act — yes, that Untermeyer.
Untermeyer and others helped Scofield get connected to Oxford University Press, which published the Scofield Reference Bible — despite him having no theological training, no scholarly background, and no credibility whatsoever.
(Well... unless you count a criminal record and abandoning his family as “credentials.”)

2. The Rockefeller Foundation directly funded seminaries that pushed Scofield.
In the early 20th century, the Rockefellers bankrolled Union Theological Seminary, and poured money into “modernizing” Christianity — and this included getting Scofield’s Bible into circulation.

See: “Spiritual Warfare: The Hidden Rockefeller Influence on American Christianity”
Also: “The Rockefeller File” by Gary Allen – documents the funding of churches, seminaries, and missionary boards
Public historical archives from the Rockefeller Foundation list religious "modernization" grants

They weren't trying to spread Christ —
They were trying to reshape the American church to support Zionist politics and Western imperial ideology.

Let’s break it down in plain terms:
Scofield’s Bible wasn’t popular because it was accurate —
it was popular because it was mass-distributed, promoted, and funded by powerful people with political motives.

His notes introduced dispensationalism, a theology no one in the early Church ever taught — and linked “Israel” to modern land, war, and politics.

Millions of pastors were trained in Scofield’s framework from 1910 onward — not because it was sound, but because it was available and institutionally backed.

Scofield’s heresy was bankrolled, distributed, and institutionally embedded in the church by Zionists, industrialists, and globalists —not prophets, not saints, not Spirit-led teachers.

And here’s the part that really destroys Scofield’s credibility:
No one — and I mean no one — in the early Church taught what Scofield taught.

The Apostles didn’t teach a secret rapture.
Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp (who was discipled by John), didn’t teach it.
Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Clement, Athanasius, Augustine — none of them.
Not a single Church Father interpreted “Israel” as a future geopolitical state.
Not one claimed the Church would be “raptured” out before tribulation.
Not one used Daniel’s 70 weeks to invent a gap for a future 7-year tribulation or rebuilt temple.

How did this modern nightmare happen? Because Scofield’s system didn’t exist until the 1800s — and was spread in America only after being bankrolled and institutionally forced into seminaries.

Even John Nelson Darby, who first invented dispensationalism in the 1830s, was rejected by most of Europe.
But in America? He found hungry industrialists and empire-minded evangelicals who saw his “future Israel” theology as a political tool.

What Scofield did was fuse Darby’s British dispensationalism with American Zionism and slap it into the margins of the Bible.
Then Rockefeller-funded networks made sure every young pastor would be taught to preach it as if it came from God.

This is historical fact — not theory.

So when someone says "this is just what the Bible teaches," they’re really just repeating a 20th-century propaganda program with a leather binding.

 

[Rockerduck]

You googled something huh? Thats cute.

Scofield + Zionism + Rockefeller = Theological Mind Bomb

1. Scofield’s Zionist agenda was backed by Oxford and British-Israel financial interests.
He was not a theologian. He was a disgraced lawyer, convicted of forgery, and abandoned his family. Yet somehow his reference Bible magically became the most influential in America?
Why? How?
Because he had help.

Joseph Canfield’s biography “The Incredible Scofield and His Book” (1974) is the smoking gun.
It details Scofield’s ties to Samuel Untermeyer, a prominent Zionist lawyer who also helped draft the Federal Reserve Act — yes, that Untermeyer.
Untermeyer and others helped Scofield get connected to Oxford University Press, which published the Scofield Reference Bible — despite him having no theological training, no scholarly background, and no credibility whatsoever.
(Well... unless you count a criminal record and abandoning his family as “credentials.”)

2. The Rockefeller Foundation directly funded seminaries that pushed Scofield.
In the early 20th century, the Rockefellers bankrolled Union Theological Seminary, and poured money into “modernizing” Christianity — and this included getting Scofield’s Bible into circulation.

See: “Spiritual Warfare: The Hidden Rockefeller Influence on American Christianity”
Also: “The Rockefeller File” by Gary Allen – documents the funding of churches, seminaries, and missionary boards
Public historical archives from the Rockefeller Foundation list religious "modernization" grants

They weren't trying to spread Christ —
They were trying to reshape the American church to support Zionist politics and Western imperial ideology.

Let’s break it down in plain terms:
Scofield’s Bible wasn’t popular because it was accurate —
it was popular because it was mass-distributed, promoted, and funded by powerful people with political motives.

His notes introduced dispensationalism, a theology no one in the early Church ever taught — and linked “Israel” to modern land, war, and politics.

Millions of pastors were trained in Scofield’s framework from 1910 onward — not because it was sound, but because it was available and institutionally backed.

Scofield’s heresy was bankrolled, distributed, and institutionally embedded in the church by Zionists, industrialists, and globalists —not prophets, not saints, not Spirit-led teachers.

And here’s the part that really destroys Scofield’s credibility:
No one — and I mean no one — in the early Church taught what Scofield taught.

The Apostles didn’t teach a secret rapture.
Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp (who was discipled by John), didn’t teach it.
Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Clement, Athanasius, Augustine — none of them.
Not a single Church Father interpreted “Israel” as a future geopolitical state.
Not one claimed the Church would be “raptured” out before tribulation.
Not one used Daniel’s 70 weeks to invent a gap for a future 7-year tribulation or rebuilt temple.

How did this modern nightmare happen? Because Scofield’s system didn’t exist until the 1800s — and was spread in America only after being bankrolled and institutionally forced into seminaries.

Even John Nelson Darby, who first invented dispensationalism in the 1830s, was rejected by most of Europe.
But in America? He found hungry industrialists and empire-minded evangelicals who saw his “future Israel” theology as a political tool.

What Scofield did was fuse Darby’s British dispensationalism with American Zionism and slap it into the margins of the Bible.
Then Rockefeller-funded networks made sure every young pastor would be taught to preach it as if it came from God.

This is historical fact — not theory.

So when someone says "this is just what the Bible teaches," they’re really just repeating a 20th-century propaganda program with a leather binding.

Changing your tune now, huh. Now the Rockafellow's funded seminaries and didn't bankroll Scofield.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Changing your tune now, huh. Now the Rockafellow's funded seminaries and didn't bankroll Scofield.

English must not be your first language.

 

[Rockerduck]

English must not be your first language.

Just make your name is written into the Lamb's book of Life, through the saving Grace of God through Jesus Christ.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Changing your tune now, huh. Now the Rockafellow's funded seminaries and didn't bankroll Scofield.

Changing my tune? Not even close. You’re just proving you didn’t actually read what I wrote — or worse, you did and still missed the point.

Let’s walk slow so no one trips:

Yes — Scofield himself was financially and institutionally supported.

Not directly by Rockefeller checks written to “C.I. Scofield, Esq.,” but by Zionist powerbrokers like Untermeyer who connected him to Oxford.

These were the same ideological and financial networks pushing a Zionist theology into the American bloodstream.

Yes — Rockefeller funded the seminaries.

Institutions like Union Theological Seminary were infused with Rockefeller cash to “modernize” Christianity, push ecumenism, and make sure new pastors were taught the version of the Bible that fit the program.

That included, of course, the mass-circulated Scofield Reference Bible, which had become the dominant study Bible in the U.S. by mid-century.

So no — I'm not “changing my tune.”
I’m playing the whole symphony, and you just heard the first note.

Scofield didn’t need to be personally cut a Rockefeller check —
He was plugged into the pipeline that they funded, they distributed, and they used to reshape the American church from the pulpit to the pew.

Your theology was hijacked, your pulpit was sold, and you’re over here nitpicking the invoice.

You’re arguing technicalities while the entire church is preaching a lie written in footnotes.

 

[Rockerduck]

Changing my tune? Not even close. You’re just proving you didn’t actually read what I wrote — or worse, you did and still missed the point.

Let’s walk slow so no one trips:

Yes — Scofield himself was financially and institutionally supported.

Not directly by Rockefeller checks written to “C.I. Scofield, Esq.,” but by Zionist powerbrokers like Untermeyer who connected him to Oxford.

These were the same ideological and financial networks pushing a Zionist theology into the American bloodstream.

Yes — Rockefeller funded the seminaries.

Institutions like Union Theological Seminary were infused with Rockefeller cash to “modernize” Christianity, push ecumenism, and make sure new pastors were taught the version of the Bible that fit the program.

That included, of course, the mass-circulated Scofield Reference Bible, which had become the dominant study Bible in the U.S. by mid-century.

So no — I'm not “changing my tune.”
I’m playing the whole symphony, and you just heard the first note.

Scofield didn’t need to be personally cut a Rockefeller check —
He was plugged into the pipeline that they funded, they distributed, and they used to reshape the American church from the pulpit to the pew.

Your theology was hijacked, your pulpit was sold, and you’re over here nitpicking the invoice.

You’re arguing technicalities while the entire church is preaching a lie written in footnotes.

Just know Jesus Christ as your Savior. Have a blessed day.

 

[talons]

Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp (who was discipled by John), didn’t teach it.

Irenaeus did teach a rapture , "caught up from this " is what he said . Guess what I even have a link for you to read all about it !

Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book 5 (Roberts-Donaldson translation)

Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book 5 (Roberts-Donaldson translation). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

 

[PS95]

When one Christians stops bitching about what the other Christian is doing maybe the lost would be interested in us.

You googled something huh? Thats cute.

Scofield + Zionism + Rockefeller = Theological Mind Bomb

1. Scofield’s Zionist agenda was backed by Oxford and British-Israel financial interests.
He was not a theologian. He was a disgraced lawyer, convicted of forgery, and abandoned his family. Yet somehow his reference Bible magically became the most influential in America?
Why? How?
Because he had help.

Joseph Canfield’s biography “The Incredible Scofield and His Book” (1974) is the smoking gun.
It details Scofield’s ties to Samuel Untermeyer, a prominent Zionist lawyer who also helped draft the Federal Reserve Act — yes, that Untermeyer.
Untermeyer and others helped Scofield get connected to Oxford University Press, which published the Scofield Reference Bible — despite him having no theological training, no scholarly background, and no credibility whatsoever.
(Well... unless you count a criminal record and abandoning his family as “credentials.”)

2. The Rockefeller Foundation directly funded seminaries that pushed Scofield.
In the early 20th century, the Rockefellers bankrolled Union Theological Seminary, and poured money into “modernizing” Christianity — and this included getting Scofield’s Bible into circulation.

See: “Spiritual Warfare: The Hidden Rockefeller Influence on American Christianity”
Also: “The Rockefeller File” by Gary Allen – documents the funding of churches, seminaries, and missionary boards
Public historical archives from the Rockefeller Foundation list religious "modernization" grants

They weren't trying to spread Christ —
They were trying to reshape the American church to support Zionist politics and Western imperial ideology.

Let’s break it down in plain terms:
Scofield’s Bible wasn’t popular because it was accurate —
it was popular because it was mass-distributed, promoted, and funded by powerful people with political motives.

His notes introduced dispensationalism, a theology no one in the early Church ever taught — and linked “Israel” to modern land, war, and politics.

Millions of pastors were trained in Scofield’s framework from 1910 onward — not because it was sound, but because it was available and institutionally backed.

Scofield’s heresy was bankrolled, distributed, and institutionally embedded in the church by Zionists, industrialists, and globalists —not prophets, not saints, not Spirit-led teachers.

And here’s the part that really destroys Scofield’s credibility:
No one — and I mean no one — in the early Church taught what Scofield taught.

The Apostles didn’t teach a secret rapture.
Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp (who was discipled by John), didn’t teach it.
Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Clement, Athanasius, Augustine — none of them.
Not a single Church Father interpreted “Israel” as a future geopolitical state.
Not one claimed the Church would be “raptured” out before tribulation.
Not one used Daniel’s 70 weeks to invent a gap for a future 7-year tribulation or rebuilt temple.

How did this modern nightmare happen? Because Scofield’s system didn’t exist until the 1800s — and was spread in America only after being bankrolled and institutionally forced into seminaries.

Even John Nelson Darby, who first invented dispensationalism in the 1830s, was rejected by most of Europe.
But in America? He found hungry industrialists and empire-minded evangelicals who saw his “future Israel” theology as a political tool.

What Scofield did was fuse Darby’s British dispensationalism with American Zionism and slap it into the margins of the Bible.
Then Rockefeller-funded networks made sure every young pastor would be taught to preach it as if it came from God.

This is historical fact — not theory.

So when someone says "this is just what the Bible teaches," they’re really just repeating a 20th-century propaganda program with a leather binding.

This is interesting. I have never had a Scofield bible and have no interest in one. I will have to look further into the history of the distribution of this bible. It sure would explain an awful lot if what you've learned is accurate. I'm not saying it is not. Idk.
Any chance that it is also used at the Dallas theological seminary? Just a wild guess.
I don't understand why any theology seminary would have need of anyone's "study bible", but that's just me.

 

[shepherdsword]

You’re confusing Sabbath observance with cosmic chronology, and that’s the exact error I just called out.

Yes, the Israelites kept a 24-hour Sabbath.
Because they’re human beings, operating under solar rhythms.
The command in Exodus is about human time — not God’s time in the act of creation.

That’s the whole point:
Just because humans observe a 24-hour Sabbath doesn’t mean God’s "days" of creation were literal 24-hour periods.
That’s like saying because we take a lunch break, God must’ve eaten a sandwich at noon every day of creation.

“Evening and morning were the first day…”

You're reading that through an English lens, not Hebrew theology.
In Hebrew structure, “evening and morning” simply bookend creative acts, not clock time.
They represent the transition from disorder to order, chaos to form — not 24 hours.
Especially since the sun and moon weren’t even created until Day 4 — how are you measuring hours before there's a sun?

The early Church didn’t read Genesis as literal clock time.
Augustine didn’t.
Origen didn’t.
Philo didn’t.
Even modern Jewish scholars understand “yom” as flexible — often representing epochs or phases of divine work.

You’re not defending scripture.
You’re defending a modern, Scofield-inspired invention that flattens sacred text into a science manual.
Better to study the Word and its languages than to throw around psychological terms like they’re scripture.

Either deal with the text as it was written, in Hebrew context, with the weight of 2,000 years of Church history —
Or keep swinging Scofield’s crumbling sword at people who actually read the Word deeper than a Sunday School coloring book.

Also:
Quoting Malachi 3:16 doesn’t prove your point — it proves mine.

The verse says God honors those who fear Him and think on His name —
not those who repeat man-made doctrines or ignore the original language and literary form of His Word.

You’re using a beautiful passage about reverence and remembrance to dodge a hard truth:
You’ve been taught to read Genesis through a Western literalist lens, shaped more by Scofield’s notes than by the Hebrew authors God actually inspired.

If you fear the Lord, then honor His Word as it was written —
in Hebrew, in divine poetry, in theological depth — not as a 19th-century American timeline.

God doesn’t bless those who flatten His truth into bumper-sticker theology.
He blesses those who seek understanding, who dig deeper, who don’t twist scripture to fit their comfort zone.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” — Proverbs 9:10
Wisdom means you learn the Word, not just quote it.

You are very confused about the salient issue. The fact remains that a "day" are an evening and a night as defined by scripture . A 24 hour period is a day. Your selective cherry picking about how Yom is defined is inconsistent and your defence of it is fallacious. You commit a classic fallacy of logic called "Appeal to authority"

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Irenaeus did teach a rapture , "caught up from this " is what he said . Guess what I even have a link for you to read all about it !

Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book 5 (Roberts-Donaldson translation)

Against Heresies / Adversus Haereses, Book 5 (Roberts-Donaldson translation). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

Ah, so you linked Irenaeus Book V thinking it proves he taught a modern Scofield-style rapture. Thanks—I’ve read it. That link actually buries your argument, not mine. Here’s the reality: Irenaeus did not teach a pre-tribulation rapture. He never taught that the Church would disappear secretly into the clouds before a seven-year tribulation. He never separated Israel and the Church. He never taught a secret escape before judgment. That entire system—pre-trib, modern Israel, seven-year timeline—was invented 1,800 years later by John Nelson Darby, not Irenaeus.

What Irenaeus actually said in Book V, Chapter 29 is that believers would be “caught up from this” in the context of the resurrection at Christ’s return in glory at the end of time, not before tribulation. He writes: “And when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months… Then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds… and the righteous shall be caught up from this.” That’s post-tribulational resurrection. That’s not a Scofield-style secret rapture. There’s no two-stage return of Christ. No disappearing acts. No secret events. No Kirk Cameron Left Behind fantasy nonsense.

He’s describing the same event Paul speaks of in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17: “Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds…” That’s not Darby’s invention. That’s the visible Second Coming—the resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age. Your own link confirms what I said: Irenaeus did not teach a pre-trib rapture. He taught what the Church always believed for nearly two millennia: one return, one resurrection, one judgment, one Bride.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

You are very confused about the salient issue. The fact remains that a "day" are an evening and a night as defined by scripture . A 24 hour period is a day. Your selective cherry picking about how Yom is defined is inconsistent and your defence of it is fallacious. You commit a classic fallacy of logic called "Appeal to authority"

I’m not appealing to authority—I’m appealing to original language, historical theology, and consistent biblical context. The Hebrew word “yom” is used throughout the Old Testament to mean different lengths of time, including metaphorical and epochal periods. That’s not cherry-picking; that’s linguistic fact acknowledged by every credible Hebrew scholar from ancient rabbis to modern experts. If Scripture itself uses yom flexibly, then context must determine meaning—not modern English assumptions. “Evening and morning” were literary structures in ancient Hebrew, especially in poetic or cosmological texts like Genesis 1, where the sun itself wasn’t created until Day 4. Measuring “24 hours” without a sun is scientifically and theologically incoherent. You’re not defending Scripture—you’re defending a 19th-century framework built by men who neither knew Hebrew nor reflected the views of the early Church. You accuse me of fallacy while standing on a Scofield footnote. Study the Word in its original language—or keep defending a timeline the apostles never taught, based on footnotes written by a drunk criminal who abandoned his family and wasn’t even a theologian.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

This is interesting. I have never had a Scofield bible and have no interest in one. I will have to look further into the history of the distribution of this bible. It sure would explain an awful lot if what you've learned is accurate. I'm not saying it is not. Idk.
Any chance that it is also used at the Dallas theological seminary? Just a wild guess.
I don't understand why any theology seminary would have need of anyone's "study bible", but that's just me.

You’re asking the right questions — and yes, your guess is dead on. Dallas Theological Seminary is ground zero for Scofield’s theology in the United States.

DTS was founded in 1924 by Lewis Sperry Chafer, a direct disciple of Scofield himself.
Chafer took Scofield’s notes, timelines, and dispensational framework and built an entire seminary curriculum on top of them — institutionalizing it as “academic theology.” To this day, DTS is one of the most prominent promoters of dispensationalism, pre-trib rapture theory, and the idea that modern Israel is prophetically central to God’s redemptive plan — a theological delusion that has no basis in scripture and every root in Zionist propaganda.

You’re absolutely right to be suspicious about why a seminary would lean so heavily on a “study Bible” — but when the footnotes are used to reinterpret the actual biblical text, what you’re seeing is a shift in doctrinal authority from scripture to commentary. That’s how Scofield’s notes gained power. They weren’t just notes — they became the lens through which generations of pastors were taught to read the Bible.

Once you start digging, you’ll see how wide the impact is. Most of what modern American Evangelicals think is “biblical prophecy” is actually Scofield’s worldview, not the apostles’.

When you start connecting the dots between Scofield, Chafer, Darby, Oxford Press, Untermeyer, and the Rockefellers, you’ll start to understand why the American church looks like it does today.

Here's the top 10 list of things to look out for.

"You Might Be Completely Brainwashed by a Drunk Criminal Named Cyrus Scofield If..."

1. You think “Israel” means a flag and a dirt patch in the Middle East — not the blood-bought Body of Jesus Christ.
Paul literally said, “If you are in Christ, you are Abraham’s seed.”
If that blows your mind, it’s because you still don’t understand that Christians are the true, "modern Israel" — not a political nation-state founded in 1948.

2. You’re sending billions in taxpayer cash and high-grade weaponry to militant Eastern European Zionists who don’t believe in Jesus — thinking that arming atheists with nukes will somehow speed up the Second Coming. Nothing screams “Thy Kingdom Come” like funding godless warlords and calling it prophecy.

3. You think the Left Behind series is a documentary.
Not a dollar-store sci-fi franchise based on zero Church history, zero Greek, and zero theology.

4. You believe that shipping red heifers to a rebuilt temple will somehow trigger the return of Christ — as if the Son of God, who once for all fulfilled the Law with His own blood, is now waiting backstage like some cosmic prop for the smoke of animal sacrifices to rise before He can act. -- How dare you reduce the King of Glory to a hostage of rituals He already fulfilled and abolished. Hebrews says the old system is obsolete. Christ is the final sacrifice. The temple is His body.
And yet here you are, trying to resurrect what He tore down — as if your theology knows better than the Cross.

5. You’ve never heard of John Nelson Darby but you’ve got his theology tattooed all over your eschatology like it came straight from Sinai.

6. You think “caught up in the clouds” means “vanishing silently while the world burns” —
because your theology comes from Kirk Cameron, not Corinthians.

7. You quote Scofield’s footnotes like scripture,
but have never read Irenaeus, Augustine, or a single line of Hebrew.
(But hey, at least you know what page the Rapture chart’s on.)

8. You think the Church gets to skip tribulation,
but Jesus didn’t — and neither did any of the apostles, martyrs, or saints you pretend to follow.

9. You believe God’s eternal plan hinges on a temple made with human hands —
as if the Most High now needs blueprints, bricks, and bulldozers to finish what He already accomplished at Calvary.
Jesus tore the veil.
Jesus fulfilled the sacrifice.
Jesus said, “Destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days.”
And you still think the future of the Church depends on a piece of land, a man-made altar, and a blood-red cow. --
You’re so theologically lost, you don’t even realize the true temple is the Body of Christ — not some rebuilt ruin in Jerusalem.
The living Church is the temple. The saints are the priests. And Christ is the final Lamb.
Trying to resurrect the old system is not faith — it’s open rebellion.

10. You think Jews and Christians “worship the same God” — even though they reject the Son, deny the Holy Spirit, and call the New Testament a lie. Spoiler alert: If you reject the Son, you don’t have the Father.
Jesus said that. Not Scofield.


11. Bonus - You honestly think a convicted criminal, abandoned husband, Oxford puppet, and literal alcoholic named Cyrus Scofield understood the Bible better than the first 1,800 years of Christianity.

If you call all this “anti-Semitic” because you don’t know the difference between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a Rothschild land deal, you might be past Scofield brainwashed... you might be Scofield baptized.

12. Bonus – You actually believe God's prophetic clock stopped ticking when ethnic Israel rejected Jesus —
as if the Creator of the universe hit "pause" on redemption for 2,000 years just to let modern geopolitics catch up.
You think the Church is a “parenthesis” in God's plan, not the very fulfillment of it —
because a drunk conman with a typewriter told you so.
God doesn’t hit pause. The Gospel is not plan B. And the Church is not a footnote.
If you believe otherwise, you’re not reading the New Testament —
you’re reading Scofield’s fantasy novel with a cross on the cover.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This is interesting. I have never had a Scofield bible and have no interest in one. I will have to look further into the history of the distribution of this bible. It sure would explain an awful lot if what you've learned is accurate. I'm not saying it is not. Idk.
Any chance that it is also used at the Dallas theological seminary? Just a wild guess.
I don't understand why any theology seminary would have need of anyone's "study bible", but that's just me.

I have had multiple Scofield bibles.

my first bible was a KJV scofield study

My second was a NKJV Sofield

My third was a NKJV scofield 3

They all have the same words of scripture as the rest.

what they have is what all study bibles have, notes. References to other passages. and the like..

The bible itself is great. Literally there is no difference in a NKJV scofield reference than their is a regular NKJV as it comes to the words written.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

I have had multiple Scofield bibles.

my first bible was a KJV scofield study

My second was a NKJV Sofield

My third was a NKJV scofield 3

They all have the same words of scripture as the rest.

what they have is what all study bibles have, notes. References to other passages. and the like..

The bible itself is great. Literally there is no difference in a NKJV scofield reference than their is a regular NKJV as it comes to the words written.

That’s what makes the Scofield Bible so dangerous — it doesn’t change the text, it reframes how you interpret it.

Yes, the scripture is still there… but once you start reading the Bible through Scofield’s footnotes, you’re no longer letting scripture interpret scripture — you’re letting a 19th-century Zionist-funded conman with no Hebrew training and a criminal record tell you what the Bible really means.

And it’s not just “notes.” Scofield’s commentary redefines major doctrines — like turning “Israel” into a geopolitical state instead of the Body of Christ, separating the Church and Israel as if God has two peoples, and inserting a two-stage return of Christ that the apostles never taught and the early Church never believed.

It’s not a neutral study tool. It’s a filter.
And once that filter is installed, people stop seeing what the Bible actually says and start parroting a system that was literally invented to support political Zionism and Western foreign policy — not the Gospel.

The danger isn’t in the translation.
The danger is in the man-made framework pretending to be biblical.

 

[Searcher]

Copy/paste isnt helping me. In fact I find it distracting from any conversation. It becomes a "who wrote it for me".

 

[Lambano]

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Understand this...

If Christians had been called “New Jews” or “Covenant Jews” instead of “Christians,” they’d understand exactly who they are. But because the name changed, the connection was severed in the minds of the brainwashed. They don’t realize the true Israel is not land, not ethnicity, not a political state founded in 1948 — it is the Body of Christ, the people of the New Covenant. The false Jews are those who claim to be sons of Abraham yet rejected the promised Seed — Jesus Christ — 2,000 years ago and continue to do so. There’s no special exemption clause or divine excuse for their unbelief.

“Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)

“It is not the children of the flesh who are God’s children, but the children of the promise.” (Romans 9:8)

“For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” (Romans 9:6)

God’s chosen people are — and always have been — those who belong to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.

“If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:29)

Romans 11:20–21 (ESV)
“That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.”
This is Paul, warning Gentile believers not to be arrogant, but also stating plainly that those who reject Christ are cut off — period. There’s no “they’re still chosen” clause here. Only faith in Jesus defines who is in the covenant.

That’s it. That’s the dividing line. The cross. No dual covenant. No national pass. No land-based gospel. Only one people, one King, one Kingdom. Period.

This wasn’t some fringe idea either — from the Apostles themselves, through the early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Clement, Athanasius, and Augustine, right up through Protestant reformers and even American founders like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, the belief was consistent: the Church is the true Israel, and those in Christ are Abraham’s seed.
But then came the 20th century — and with it, a demonic hijacking of biblical identity. When Scofield’s Zionist-drenched “study Bible” began falling like poisoned rain on every seminary classroom, church pew, and backwoods John Boy Walton household across America, it wasn’t revival — it was an infiltration from Hell itself. From 1915 to 1940, these so-called “free Bibles” carried footnotes that didn’t just mislead — they rewired the Church’s mind, redefined prophecy, and shifted loyalty from the Cross of Christ to the borders of a nation-state God never commanded us to worship. This was not a mistake. This was not just bad theology. This was the work of Satan masquerading as study notes — using a drunk, criminal conman as a Trojan horse to divide the Church, blind the sheep, and exalt the flesh over the Spirit. The result? A Church that forgot who it is, started worshiping a flag, funding a land, and defending a priesthood and altar that God already judged and destroyed 2,000 years ago — at the Cross, in the Temple, and through the blood of His Son. This was not faith — it was theological identity theft, and millions are still living under its spell.

If the early Church Fathers — Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Augustine — and even U.S. founders like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln could turn on a television today and witness modern Evangelicals demanding tanks, missiles, and nuclear firepower be sent to support unbelieving Zionists in the Middle East, they would be absolutely horrified — not just at the ignorance, but at the open rebellion against God being paraded as “biblical prophecy.”

The early Church never confused Israel with a political state, and they would have never supported war on behalf of those who reject the Son of God. In fact, Justin Martyr declared plainly:

“For the true spiritual Israel... are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ.” — Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 11

Tertullian said:
“The Jews had formerly been near to God, but they have been cast off for the sake of their sins, and we Christians have succeeded to their place.” — An Answer to the Jews, Chapter 1

The Apostles warned of this inversion of truth.
Paul writes in Romans 2:28–29:
“A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly... but a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart.”

Galatians 6:16 calls the Church “the Israel of God.”
Yet today’s Evangelicals, infected with Scofield’s heresy, defend a covenant God already abolished, prop up an altar He tore down, and bless a priesthood He replaced. This is not just bad theology —
it’s open rebellion.
It’s the rejection of Christ’s finished work on the Cross in favor of a fleshly, carnal substitute.

Hebrews 10:29 makes the warning clear:
“How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot... and insulted the Spirit of grace?”

These modern Zionist-aligned “Christians” aren’t defending the faith —
they’re rejecting it.
They’re not protecting the Gospel —
they’re helping rebuild the ruins of a covenant God already judged, and calling it obedience.

This is not faith.
This is not discernment.
This is a great apostasy, and it is being broadcast on just about every so-called Christian network in the West.

 

[talons]

Ah, so you linked Irenaeus Book V thinking it proves he taught a modern Scofield-style rapture. Thanks—I’ve read it. That link actually buries your argument, not mine. Here’s the reality: Irenaeus did not teach a pre-tribulation rapture. He never taught that the Church would disappear secretly into the clouds before a seven-year tribulation. He never separated Israel and the Church. He never taught a secret escape before judgment. That entire system—pre-trib, modern Israel, seven-year timeline—was invented 1,800 years later by John Nelson Darby, not Irenaeus.

What Irenaeus actually said in Book V, Chapter 29 is that believers would be “caught up from this” in the context of the resurrection at Christ’s return in glory at the end of time, not before tribulation. He writes: “And when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months… Then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds… and the righteous shall be caught up from this.” That’s post-tribulational resurrection. That’s not a Scofield-style secret rapture. There’s no two-stage return of Christ. No disappearing acts. No secret events. No Kirk Cameron Left Behind fantasy nonsense.

He’s describing the same event Paul speaks of in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17: “Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds…” That’s not Darby’s invention. That’s the visible Second Coming—the resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age. Your own link confirms what I said: Irenaeus did not teach a pre-trib rapture. He taught what the Church always believed for nearly two millennia: one return, one resurrection, one judgment, one Bride.

So how are you preparing for your time on earth during the tribulation ?

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

So how are you preparing for your time on earth during the tribulation ?

You just asked how I’m “preparing” for the tribulation — as if faith in Christ needs a bunker, a rapture chart, or a Scofield escape clause to stand firm.

Here’s my answer: I prepare the same way the Apostles did — by dying daily.
By enduring in faith.
By refusing to run from hardship, persecution, or trial — because Jesus never promised escape. He promised victory through suffering, not avoidance of it.

John 16:33 — “In this world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
2 Timothy 3:12 — “All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.”
Matthew 24:13 — “He who endures to the end will be saved.”

The early Church didn’t fear tribulation. They bled under it.
The martyrs didn’t wait for a pre-trib vanishing act. They embraced the cross, because they believed in the resurrection — not in disappearing.

So how do I prepare?
I cling to Christ.
I preach the Gospel.
I stand on the blood of the Lamb and the word of my testimony — even if it costs me everything.
(Revelation 12:11)

I prepare by rejecting fear-based theology, Scofield’s delusion, and the cowardice of a Church more obsessed with evacuation than endurance.

There’s only one return of Christ.
When He comes, every eye will see Him.
Until then? We endure. We overcome. We stand.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

When the Book of Genesis uses the Hebrew word “yom” (יוֹם) to describe the creation periods, it does not rigidly mean a 24-hour day.
“Yom” can mean a day — but also a season, epoch, or age — depending entirely on the context.

Yom, in this context, means a 24 hour day. Why?
Scripture confirms it after each day of events. Are you blind?
Vs. 5
God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

>> Would you also like to change the meanings of light and darkness, evening and morning too?

God defines the length, equivalent to adding an evening and morning. "And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

... "And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
... "And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day... and so on.